Exemption No. 10280

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

RICHMOR AVIATION, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0001

for an exemption from § 135.225(f) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated Decem ber 21, 2010, Mr. Peter F. Schafer, Chief Pilot, Richmor Aviation, Inc. (Richmor), 1142 Route 9H, Hudson, New York 12534, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Richmor for an exemption from § 135.225(f) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would permit Richmor to make instrument flight rules (IFR) takeoffs with less than 1 mile visibility and approaches and landings with less than 1⁄2 mile visibility at military and foreign airports.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 135.225 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot making an IFR takeoff or approach and landing at a military or foreign airport shall comply with applicable instrument approach procedures and weather minimums prescribed by the authority having jurisdiction over that airport. In addition, no pilot may, at that airport—

(1) Take off under IFR when the visibility is less than 1 mile; or

(2) Make an instrument approach when the visibility is less than 1⁄2 mile.

AFS-11-109-E2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that the current regulation results in significant numbers of flight delays that impact the public when conducting foreign airport operations. Operations currently limited to 1 mile visibility are significantly limited in contrast to 500 feet runway visual range (RVR). This is particularly critical in the European environment where departure reservations are the norm. The actual economic impact is difficult to calculate, but any delays created by this rule for charter flights conducted by Richmor could experience considerable loss of revenue from affected flights due to duty time and other limitations.

The petitioner states it currently holds a part 135 air carrier certificate (BQVA582C). As such, it is currently authorized to conduct takeoffs in weather minimums below Category I takeoff minimums for part 135 airplane operations (Operations Specification C079

, Table I) down to 500 feet RVR. In addition, Canadian officials have issued operations specifications to Richmor allowing lower than standard takeoff and landing minimums of 600 feet RVR.

The petitioner states that all crewmembers are trained and evaluated under the Richmor FAA approved part 135 training program. The lower than standard takeoff minimums (500 feet RVR) training event is conducted in the initial new hire, upgrade, and recurrent curriculum segments. Additionally, the petitioner notes that its Global BD-700 aircraft is equipped with a heads-up display (HUD). Crewmembers assigned to that aircraft are trained to use this device during low visibility takeoffs to aid in situational awareness.

The petitioner states that it is a sophisticated part 91/135 operator, utilizing multiple large turbine-powered aircraft in a worldwide arena. The petitioner states that safety audits are conducted on a regular basis by ARGUS, Wyver n, National Charter Safety Foundation, and Executive Jet Management. Additionally, the petitioner notes that it operates with an approved Safety Management System (SMS). The petitioner states that granting this exemption request will not decrease the level of safety and would recognize the advances in technology and the flight support systems that Richmor has in place.

Although the petitioner requested that action on its petition not be delayed for publication

in the Federal Register , the FAA found that the petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, to allow an opportunity for the public to comment on the petition, a summary of this petition was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2011 (76 FR 22445). Four comments were received, all of which supported the petition.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has considered the petitioner’s request and supporting materials for exemption to § 135.225(f) and finds that a grant of exemption would be in the public interest and maintain a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the current regulation.3

Under § 121.651, an operator’s takeoff and landing weather minimums are specified in that certificate holder’s operations specifications, or parts 91 and 97, without any supplemental restrictions at military or foreign airports. Section 121.651(f) states that unless otherwise authorized in the certificate holder’s operations specifications, each pilot making an IFR takeoff, approach, or landing at a foreign airport shall comply with the applicable instrument approach procedures and weather minimums prescribed by the authority having jurisdiction over the airport. Unlike the part 121 regulation, § 135.225 separates domestic operations from those at military and foreign airports.

When operating internationally, Richmor may need to use aerodromes not serviced by commercial air carriers; however, in accordance with the requirements of Article 15 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago 1944), the specifications of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 14, Volume I (Aerodrome Design and Operations), “shall apply to all aerodromes open to public use.” Specifications in Annex 14 are at least comparable, and in some cases exceed the specifications in 14 CFR part 139, Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13 (Airport De sign), and other ACs in the 150/53 series regarding airport paving, signage, marking, etc. Furthermore, instrument approaches at most international airports outside the United States use criteria specified in the ICAO Document 816S-0PS, Procedures for Air Navigation Se rvices-Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS), volumes I and II, to which U.S. Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) criteria are equivalent. Therefore, no degradation of safety will occur while Richmor is executing procedures designed by a foreign nation.

When operating domestically under the provisions of part 135, Richmor is currently authorized, through Operations Specification C 079, to conduct takeoffs when the RVR is as low as 500 feet (150m). In fact, low visibility training events are conducted in the initial new hire, upgrade, and recurrent curriculum segments. Since Richmor already trains and operates to low weather minimums and currently practices these procedures worldwide under part 91 and domestically under part 135, it would be logical to conclude an equivalent level of safety could be maintained when operating to foreign airports under part 135.

Other operators have pointed out that they have incurred 5 to 10 delays (of 2 hours or greater) per month because of the restrictions imposed by § 135.225, which have resulted in loss of revenue and passenger inconvenience, in part because they have to comply with “1 mile” instead of “500 feet” RVR. These delays are exacerbated by certain foreign air traffic operations. In Europe, it is often necessary to make departure reservations well in advance of the anticipated departure time. If a takeoff is subsequently delayed because of weather, then a departure slot is lost and an additional request must be made which further stresses an overburdened air traffic system. The public interest would be well served if these avoidable delays could be lessened.

Weather minimums for aircraft operating under part 135 are prescribed in §§ 91.175 and 135.225. Section 91.175 is applicable to both U.S. and foreign airports, and while it prescribes specific minimums, it allows for operations at lower minimums when authorized4

by the Administrator through operations specifications. Section 135.225 restricts a pilot operating under part 135 from making a takeoff at any foreign airport when the visibility is less than 1 mile. Unlike § 91.175, § 135.225 does not have a provision for operating at lower minimums when authorized by the Administrator. Therefore, takeoffs with less than 1 mile visibility at these foreign airports cannot be authorized through operations specifications.

The FAA notes that the petitioner’s request is not unique. On February 26, 1992, Atlantic Coast Airlines (ACA) d.b.a. United Express petitioned the FAA for relief from 14 CFR § 135.225(e) (now § 135.225(f)) to allow it to use lower minimums in Canada (Regulatory Docket No. 26802). At the time, ACA was a relatively new air carrier with very little experience in low visibility operations. In its petition, ACA stated that its request for exemption was the same as those exemptions granted to Horizon Air, Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., and Northeast Express Regional Airlines. A summary of ACA’s petition was published in the Federal Register on April 29, 1992 (57 FR 18201), and no public comments were received. ACA was granted Exemption No. 5499 on August 3, 1992. Also, two exemptions (Nos. 5090 and 6661) have been granted to Bankair, Inc., to operate from any U.S. military base with less than 1 mile visibility.

Richmor has extensive experience operating to lower minimums domestically under part 135. Crews receive training in low visibility operati ons as part of their FAA-approved part 135 training program and routinely utilize the lower minimums when flying into domestic airports while operating under part 135. The FAA believes that an equivalent level of safety could be maintained while operating to military or foreign airports under part 135. Richmor is in the business of providing on-demand air transportation to anyone whose travel needs cannot be served by scheduled air service. In today’s environment, major part 121 carriers have reduced their schedules and markets, forcing certain consumers to rely on operators such as Richmor to accommodate their travel requirements. Granting this exemption will enable those travelers to meet their needs at a level of safety equivalent to that of a part 121 air carrier. It will also reduce potential delays to those customers, especially in international

markets.

The FAA’s Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Richmor Aviation, Inc., is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 135.225(f) to the extent necessary to allow Richmor to make IFR takeoffs from foreign and military airports when the visibility is less than 1 mile or approaches and landings when the visibility is less than 1⁄2 mile, subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.5

Conditions and Limitations

1. The operator m ust have and comply with Operations Specification C079.

2. Airports at which the operator intends to utilize the provisions of this exemption must have approach procedures developed in accordance with U.S. TERPS or

ICAO PANS-OPS criteria.

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on June 7, 2011.

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service6